MN -- woman shot in face and killed by ICE, Minneapolis, 7 Jan 2026

[Summerliz03]

I joined WS because of the Kohberger murders in Iowa, that was the first case I followed here. I cannot imagine if in one of the threads there, people were saying “well the girls left their sliding door unlocked, so it was easy for Bryan to get into the house and then look what happened” or “I wonder if any of the girls ever paid attention to him or if they communicated on social media and he may have gotten the wrong idea from them” That’s honestly what I feel like is happening in this thread. I’ve never seen a thread on here with so much victim blaming IMO.

 

[Ruminations]

Am I seeing that the ICE agent turned murderer because a citizen was asking why he was filming a license plate?

Well...why was he filming a license plate? It's legal-as legal as her filming him- but why?

Why was he filming a license plate?

And, whatever he reason was for doing it, why was he so rattled by being asked about it? He was allowed to film there if he wanted, right?

MOO

 

[Cryptic]

The constant attempts

My point was that she didn't clip him.

MO

Clip as in "hit"? At some point she did- videos clearly show it. He even appeared to be momentarily lifted off his feet- though he was never knocked over.

 

[keek]

Yes, I’m so happy and thankful to ICE for raiding a local Minnesota high school and arresting 3 teachers while they were teaching and terrorizing students. We are all so much safer now!!

Witnesses say agents arrest Minneapolis school staff, tear gas students; DHS claims no tear gas was used

Witnesses say agents tear-gassed staff and students and may have taken some staff members into custody. DHS denies using tear gas.

www.kare11.com

Brown shirts also can type. IMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Am I seeing that the ICE agent turned murderer because a citizen was asking why he was filming a license plate?

Well...why was he filming a license plate? It's legal-as legal as her filming him- but why?

Why was he filming a license plate?

And, whatever he reason was for doing it, why was he so rattled by being asked about it? He was allowed to film there if he wanted, right?

MOO

They weren't even asking. They told him they don't change their plates, basically giving him permission to record the plate. They didn't care. He was rattled.

MOO.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

If we strip away all the politics, the opinions about the legitimacy of ICE, the emotions, the history, and just look at the facts ...

We have three officers. Two arrive and one orders the woman to get out of her vehicle. It doesn't matter why they did that, it must matters that it happened.

The woman did not get out of her vehicle. She chose to ignore the officers. It's well known that refusing to listen to an officer will escalate the situation.

While she was backing up her vehicle, one of the officers walked in front of her vehicle and towards the other two officers.

While that officer was walking in front of her vehicle, she reversed direction and started accelerating, spinning her front tires on the ice. He interpreted that decision as a threat. He reacted by pulling his weapon and aiming it at her. She didn't stop. He shot her.

Her vehicle continued in the direction she was steering and crashed into a parked vehicle with force.

Take away the noise, and what's left? Officers told a woman to do something, she refused, the situation escalated, the officer believed he was threatened, and we know how it ended.

You said look at the facts and yet continuously speak on what he thought, how he felt, what he interpreted. Unless you are the ICE agent in question, the things you are saying are assumptions and indeed NOT facts. Jmo.

 

[Inthedetails]

I joined WS because of the Kohberger murders in Iowa, that was the first case I followed here. I cannot imagine if in one of the threads there, people were saying “well the girls left their sliding door unlocked, so it was easy for Bryan to get into the house and then look what happened” or “I wonder if any of the girls ever paid attention to him or if they communicated on social media and he may have gotten the wrong idea from them” That’s honestly what I feel like is happening in this thread. I’ve never seen a thread on here with so much victim blaming IMO.

Usually victim blaming is against WS rules.

jmo

 

[keek]

I do feel that there are lots of threads with victim blamey posts - and those have been growing. IMO anyways. But maybe I'm wrong - and I hope so.

They are of course, they are always around, creepy. IMO

 

[Inthedetails]

Am I seeing that the ICE agent turned murderer because a citizen was asking why he was filming a license plate?

Well...why was he filming a license plate? It's legal-as legal as her filming him- but why?

Why was he filming a license plate?

And, whatever he reason was for doing it, why was he so rattled by being asked about it? He was allowed to film there if he wanted, right?

MOO

He thought that would intimidate them. It didn't. So he got mad at the b*****es (his word).

jmo

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Don't we expect her engine to rev if she's backing up in snow and ice?

It was in drive as in forward momentum. A split second before that, we hear “drive baby, drive”.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

The constant attempts

Clip as in "hit"? At some point she did- videos clearly show it. He even appeared to be momentarily lifted off his feet- though he was never knocked over.

I don't agree that he was lifted off his feet. Any interaction he had with the vehicle was of his own making as he leaned over it to shoot her. HE made contact with the vehicle. HE clipped the vehicle, not her. She was turned away from him.

The problem with the narrative that she hit him or clipped him or tilted him off his feet or whatever is that it gives the impression he was legitimately hit and the video shows very clearly that he was not. Even immediately after shooting her, he calls her a " ." He doesn't even take a second to process a car hitting him. He walks away like the creep he is. This person was not injured in any way and I just don't believe that her vehicle made contact with his body that HE did not initiate.

MOO.

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't agree that he was lifted off his feet. Any interaction he had with the vehicle was of his own making as he leaned over it to shoot her. HE made contact with the vehicle. HE clipped the vehicle, not her. She was turned away from him.

The problem with the narrative that she hit him or clipped him or tilted him off his feet or whatever is that it gives the impression he was legitimately hit and the video shows very clearly that he was not. Even immediately after shooting her, he calls her a " ." He doesn't even take a second to process a car hitting him. He walks away like the creep he is. This person was not injured in any way and I just don't believe that her vehicle made contact with his body that HE did not initiate.

MOO.

I have the impression that he leaned over to shoot Renee through the front windscreen also.

imo

 

[otto]

You said look at the facts and yet continuously speak on what he thought, how he felt, what he interpreted. Unless you are the ICE agent in question, the things you are saying are assumptions and indeed NOT facts. Jmo.

I do believe that the only reason the officer pulled his weapon and aimed at the driver was to stop her, but she didn't stop.

I do not believe that the officer shot the driver because he has PTSD, anger against women, felt taunted, was emotional, or for any reason other than reasons associated with his job. That is, the only reason he would pull a weapon and shoot is because he felt threatened when a vehicle was heading towards him.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It was in drive as in forward momentum. A split second before that we hear “drive baby, drive”.

You must be watching a completely different video from me.

 

[Moonstrawbs]

I do believe that the only reason the officer pulled his weapon and aimed at the driver was to stop her, but she didn't stop.

I do not believe that the officer shot the driver because he has PTSD, anger against women, felt taunted, was emotional, or for any reason other than reasons associated with his job. That is, the only reason he would pull a weapon and shoot is because he felt threatened when a vehicle was heading towards him.

Key word here being "believe". All of that is your opinion and again are not facts. Jmo.

 

[acutename]

I fully agree with you.

I don't think she was intending to hit officers, nor do I believe the other protester's command to "Drive baby, drive." was a directive to weaponize the car.

Rather, I think it was an impulsive and poorly thought out order by somebody being "In the moment". I wish the driver had not taken it to heart in the way she did.

since the wife stayed behind, I think RG just intended to move the car out of the roadway as she was asked to do. I do not think she ever believed that she would be shot. she seems innocent and maybe naive. were there actually illegals or fugitives in that neighborhood that the agents were trying to locate? we get the "end" of this story but not what happened earlier in the day. I hate gang initiation killings and illegal drugs but I hate this shooting too.

 

[minneolo]

If we strip away all the politics, the opinions about the legitimacy of ICE, the emotions, the history, and just look at the facts ...

We have three officers. Two arrive and one orders the woman to get out of her vehicle. It doesn't matter why they did that, it must matters that it happened.

The woman did not get out of her vehicle. She chose to ignore the officers. It's well known that refusing to listen to an officer will escalate the situation.

While she was backing up her vehicle, one of the officers walked in front of her vehicle and towards the other two officers.

While that officer was walking in front of her vehicle, she reversed direction and started accelerating, spinning her front tires on the ice. He interpreted that decision as a threat. He reacted by pulling his weapon and aiming it at her. She didn't stop. He shot her.

Her vehicle continued in the direction she was steering and crashed into a parked vehicle with force.

Take away the noise, and what's left? Officers told a woman to do something, she refused, the situation escalated, the officer believed he was threatened, and we know how it ended.

But what is the purpose of removing all the context?

I haven’t done the frame by frame analysis of the cars moving (I really prefer not to watch people in my city be killed, on repeat) - so let’s say that your assessment is entirely accurate re the car.

“He interpreted that decision as a threat” is not a fact. It’s your conclusion and/or the statements of either the shooter or his org - who would have incentive to portray this interaction as a very scary attack on a federal LEO.

Removing the context doesn’t help us understand the situation better, it makes it HARDER to assess what’s happened.

My own opinion.

 

[Ruminations]

Not only did they commence CPR they held back some of the public from beating the out of the terrorists once they were incapacitated.

Exactly. I can't imagine doing that, but you have to be prepared to enforce the law and not succumb to your feelings if you have a law enforcement job.

MOO

 

[otto]

Key word here being "believe". All of that is your opinion and again are not facts. Jmo.

I'm basing my belief on the professionalism of officers. They don't run around shooting people because they're in a bad mood.

 

[Inthedetails]

I do believe that the only reason the officer pulled his weapon and aimed at the driver was to stop her, but she didn't stop.

I do not believe that the officer shot the driver because he has PTSD, anger against women, felt taunted, was emotional, or for any reason other than reasons associated with his job. That is, the only reason he would pull a weapon and shoot is because he felt threatened when a vehicle was heading towards him.

He was triggered. And being that sensitive makes him unfit for duty. imo

But the head of the agency touts his professionalism.

jmo